While I can understand understand why some people would see this play as being anti-feminist, I would have to disagree. The woman may not be present, but they certainly have an impact on the action of the play. It would also seem that the women are holding all of the cards so to speak. The men in this play would like to think that they "wear the pants," but the truth is that is that it is the women pulling their puppet strings. In the few cases where this is seen, it shows that it is probably a good thing. When left to their own devises, the men of the play seem to have no morals if it gets in the way of making money. Not only do I think this play is not anti-feminist, but I think it paints men as the ones that might be in need of some oppression. The women of this play are not out to hurt other people, they are just protecting what is theirs.
Mrs. Lingk for instance is the initial reason for Ricky Roma losing the contest within the office. While Roma might like to blame his boss for losing the deal for him because he did not knowing the mark, there would not have been any trouble to begin with if Mrs. Lingk hadn't told her husband to get their money back. This also causes a chain reaction and gets Levene caught for what he did the night before. Now, I'm pretty sure that Mrs. Lingk had no idea what her choice was going to ultimately bring about. Then there is Harriet Nyborg. She and her husband take up Levene's time and get his hopes up for something that will never happen. She played Levene like a fiddle just because she liked talking to salesmen for some strange reason. While her motives might have been slightly insane, she still knew what she was doing. However, Levene is hurt by his ex wife before either of these women come into his life. It would seem that she kicked him out and he is still paying her bills. On top of paying her bills and his bills, he also seems to be the main source for taking care of his daughter's medical bills. This once again shows just how much power Mamet has given these unseen characters.
Now, I know that it could be argued that Mamet was using this to show that if woman have this sort of power, then they would have the ability to hurt men. I just don't think that that's the case. Most of these characters are back stabbing con men and all of them are just out to make a buck. Roma didn't care how much money he was taking Lingk for, all he cares about was winning his contest. It didn't matter to Levene or Moss that Williamson would lose his job if the office was broken into. Mitch and Murray only cared about how much profit they were making and not about someone losing his job over impossible sales. In fact, the only male character that wasn't out for himself was Aaronow. The women had the right to not trust these men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that when left to their own devices, the men in the play are just immoral boys with toys, and that the women really are the ultimate deciders. They see through the bs sales pitches and are able discern that these pieces of real estate are worthless. In this sense the play is not completely anti-feminist, but I can’t really ignore having mentioned a woman looking “like she was just *ucked by a rat.” Misogyny does seep into Mamet’s play here and there, usually in the form of a vulgar expletive or derogatory remark. At the same time, each salesman doesn’t have a whole lot of respect for his coworker. Most of the “work” being done in the office involves intense shouting matches with very graphic curse words, or petty complaints about how bad the leads are. Maturity and integrity, on the men’s part, are replaced by chest pounding and aggressive, anything-goes competition. I did consider Levene’s relationship with his daughter to be positive, as he is taking care of her in the hospital. But I didn’t really think of that as a sort of restraint on him, nor as a power she has over him- if that’s what you were driving at. Maybe not. I’m intrigued that you talk about the women’s roles slightly in terms of power. And I agree that those women had every right not to trust these men. Mamet almost crosses the line in having Mrs. Lingk act just as heartlessly (if you read it that way) in getting James to renege on the deal, but I read it as her being more reasonable in not buying the property, rather than simply not giving a damn about Roma’s property. She’s acting out of their best interest.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I do not see the play as "anti-feminist" either. It really does not seem that the men "wear the pants" all the time. All the male characters seem driven by money, mostly out of desperation. Levene, as you mentioned, is possibly supporting his wife, even though they are not together. LIngk basically admits his wife has the "power" in their relationship.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading your comments about Lingk and Roma, I started randomly thinking about the story Roma started telling Lingk about Ray (Levene) "eating at one of his company's men's home in France." Upon asking Levene whether he was French, Levene replied, "No, his wife is." Even though Roma and Levene are both lying, it is funny that Levene, instead of agreeing that the company man is French, goes so far as to say his wife is. So in this fabrication, Levene perhaps subconsciously is suggesting that even the woman in that relationship holds the power. It implies that she is French, therefore her husband has moved to France and tried to assume part of her identity.
In my opinion, there is more a battle of the sexes at play than anything here. I would not go so far as to call this play "antifeminist," since the characters who imply anything offensive about women are all morally questionable themselves. Perhaps if they were more likable characters I would start to question whether the play is "antifeminist." If anything, I think the play is more in support of women being a moral compass and of a better business sense than men. Even Roma starts to admit that a woman's negative reaction might be out of "prudence." And who's to say a little prudence at times is not a good thing?